Is Canon Law 919 a JOKE???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joysong said:
I believe if fasting was required, the Lord Himself would not have given His Body and Blood at “supper.” If it was ok for Him, why not for all?

Yes, the OP is using demeaning language that indicates a “holier than thou” antagonism towards the Church. Obviously he does not understand, nor does he wish to … or he would have used more respectful wording in the question.
Click to expand...
I think the OP was a bit attack too soon in the thread but to be honest Joysong I thought at frist the OP was another complaint about the “spirit of Vac-II” 🙂 one of those posts that say “oh look at what Vac-II did” no offense to those serioulsy concerned about the abuses in our Church, I do understand 😉 honest! So don’t get upset by that comment. :gopray2:

Anyway, I thought an hour before has always been the case…has it changed though? Did it used be longer Joysong?
 
I am Eastern Catholic. I used to be a Protestant Minister. In some Protestant circles the practice of a “one hour fast” and the fact that many don’t even realize that all Catholics used to fast much longer would be called “sloppy apage”. I think they’d be right.

CDL
 
Anyway, I thought an hour before has always been the case…has it changed though? Did it used be longer Joysong?
Click to expand...
Yes, it used to be fasting from midnight, and then fasting for three hours, finally reduced to one hour. My point was that Jesus did not require any fasting on the part of his apostles; and I was not implying therefore, that we shouldn’t have to observe the one-hour fast. Obedience to the guidelines of the Church is essential, yes?

The OP was opposed to the mind of the Church and felt that more was required. Expressing disdain for Canon Law as being a joke is not using terminology that suggests an inquiring spirit, but rather, one that is in opposition and seeking to find agreement from others. His own words speak his mind. Remember the “tail-gating parties?”
 
Joysong said:
Yes, it used to be fasting from midnight, and then fasting for three hours, finally reduced to one hour. My point was that Jesus did not require any fasting on the part of his apostles; and I was not implying therefore, that we shouldn’t have to observe the one-hour fast. Obedience to the guidelines of the Church is essential, yes?

The OP was opposed to the mind of the Church and felt that more was required. Expressing disdain for Canon Law as being a joke is not using terminology that suggests an inquiring spirit, but rather, one that is in opposition and seeking to find agreement from others. His own words speak his mind. Remember the “tail-gating parties?”
Click to expand...
Thanks, I did think it was different at one time 🙂
yes, I was a offended by the tail-gating comment as well :rolleyes: the OPs question could have been more charitable
 
Saoirse said:
I am not yet Catholic and I was somehow aware of this rule anyways. I think I must’ve read it in a book somewhere.

I didn’t think a lot of people would take it too seriously, even if they are supposed to. I’ve been singing with in the local Parish’s evening choir since July, and maybe there’s exceptions and stuff but most of the choir seems to rely on Fishermen’s friends to help keep their throats clear for singing - all through the MASS prayers and everything, they get passed and offered around. Plus, after choir practice - and right before the MASS started - we passed around butter cookies maybe about a week before Christmas (the cookies were donated to the choir from some kind soul who like our singing).

I never realized someone would take it seriously, though I can see why it should be and why it would’ve been instigated (I have a Pagan background and that particular faith encouraged rigorous fasting for pretty much everything - I’ll be honest, I suck at starving myself for even one day - I would get to about four o’clock, and then when my brother had his after school snack I’d make up for the missed breakfast and lunch - fasting is hard, requires strength of will and I was reading in the Catechism(sp?) today that in order to recieve the Sacrament of Confirmation, the candidate (or confirmand - are those words interchangeable?) one must be in a state of grace that can be prepared for by, among other requirements, fasting to strengthen the will).

What with the only fifteen minutes before MASS being required, I think maybe that’s a good thing as I know the priest who’s been playing a somewhat major role in my conversion experience and also in my instruction has a habbit of getting his breakfast in between the nine o’clock and the eleven o’clock MASS, and he doesn’t seem to think that there’s anything wrong in doing so.

always,
Saoirse (Elena)
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, the rules change for a priest if they celebrate more then one Mass of the same day…
 
CRW said:
Believe it or not, the rules change for a priest if they celebrate more then one Mass of the same day…
Click to expand...
You seem a bit overly sensitive. I thought the tail-gating comment to be humorous and to the point. I don’t know why the original poster is so touchy about not identifying himself but I’m Eastern Catholic.

BTW If we won’t laugh at ourselves others will have to do it for us.

CDL

I meant to quote Anachara, not CRW. Sorry about that. The tailgating quote seemed to be spot on.
 
I notice a lot of people comment on how either they or Catholics they know do not take Canon 919 seriously.

I might add that we do not get to pick and choose which laws we obey, we are supposed to be obeying all of them. As such, none of them are “jokes,” and none are rules that were meant to be broken.

If you do not feel that what would boil down to 15 minutes is enough time of fasting, then fast longer. By all means, fast longer.

The problem is that if the fast is extended to let us say, 3 hours, then it would still seem like a “joke” to some people.

Why?

Well, if I go to 7am mass, then I met the requirements of the fast simply by not eating in my sleep. If I go to Noon Mass, then I have to be awake and consciously not eat for 3 hours.

So really, since mass times are different from church to church, I don’t know what time period our Holy Father could possibly associate with this particular fast that would satisfy you, because unless it was over 24 hours the people who go to the first morning mass would hardly have to fast at all and the people in the afternoon masses will be dropping like flies come summer.
 
lepanto said:
From the catechism:

Can. 919 §1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine.
So basically this means that we are to “fast” just 60 minutes before the reception of communion (I’m not including the medicine exemption).

Assuming that communion is received 45 minutes into the typical 60 minute Mass, does this mean that we can stuff our faces all the way up to a mere 15 minutes before Mass starts? Is this supposed to be a “fast” or is it a joke? No wonder hardly anybody cares or observes this “fast.” :confused:

I think we need to start holding tail-gate parties in church parking lots before Mass. :whistle:
Click to expand...
It is supposed to be the “bare minimum”. You may Fast from Midnight if you wish, like I do usually.
 
lepanto said:
I think we need to start holding tail-gate parties in church parking lots before Mass. :whistle:
Click to expand...
Well, this wouldn’t exactly adhere to the spirit of the law. 😃 And, no, it’s not a joke. If you look at it objectively, what is the purpose of any fast? To suffer for suffering’s sake? No. It’s a spiritual exercise to bring focus on God, in this case, a focus on receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus into our bodies. For some, fasting for days would not prepare them. For others, a moment of silence might be sufficient. The fast before communion is symbolic and spiritual in nature. It is meant to call our attention to the profound Mystery in which we are about to enter.

If you look at it strictly in the sense of how rigorous the fast is on the body, I think you miss the point. I don’t eat a big breakfast myself usually, so I can wake up and go to 10:00 am Mass without eating or drinking anything and not experience any discomfort at all. Would that make my fast more laudable than the one for, let’s say, an athelete who eats a large breakfast and is hungry from the moment he awakens, but who only fasts an hour before communion?

With issues like this, I’m afraid it’s too easy to be more concerned with form than substance. The most important point is to be spiritually prepared for receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Each person should observe the fast that accomplishes this within the limits of the Canon. I’d be more concerned about people receiving the Eucharist with unconfessed mortal sin.
 
I observe the more traditional fast of nothing after midnight the night prior to Mass.
lepanto said:
From the catechism:

Can. 919 §1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine.
So basically this means that we are to “fast” just 60 minutes before the reception of communion (I’m not including the medicine exemption).

Assuming that communion is received 45 minutes into the typical 60 minute Mass, does this mean that we can stuff our faces all the way up to a mere 15 minutes before Mass starts? Is this supposed to be a “fast” or is it a joke? No wonder hardly anybody cares or observes this “fast.” :confused:

I think we need to start holding tail-gate parties in church parking lots before Mass. :whistle:
Click to expand...
 
You seem a bit overly sensitive. I thought the tail-gating comment to be humorous and to the point.
Click to expand...
Gregory,

It depends upon the mind of the reader, wouldn’t you agree? The connotation of tailgating is a bit more than simply eating, but rather using alcohol with a spirit of revery. The choice of words is quite offensive for those who consider the liturgy to be a most sacred action, and the implication was very inappropriate … particularly that this would take place on sacred grounds in the parking lot in front of the church where the Eucharist is reserved. I have seen many people drive by a church and bless themselves out of reverence for the sacrament.
 
lepanto said:
From the catechism:

Can. 919 §1 Whoever is to receive the blessed Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicine.
So basically this means that we are to “fast” just 60 minutes before the reception of communion (I’m not including the medicine exemption).

Assuming that communion is received 45 minutes into the typical 60 minute Mass, does this mean that we can stuff our faces all the way up to a mere 15 minutes before Mass starts? Is this supposed to be a “fast” or is it a joke? No wonder hardly anybody cares or observes this “fast.” :confused:

I think we need to start holding tail-gate parties in church parking lots before Mass. :whistle:
Click to expand...
Fasting is more meaningful when it is a choice anyway. So go for it.

Your post reminds me of politics. The socialist is outraged that the government does not demand more money from people to “help the poor”. The capitalist, if he is virtuous believes in charity by choice. Resent polls show the more socialist ones views the less generous they are. The more conservative (capitalist) the more generous the are. So be a fasting capitalist. Make sure your practice is consistent with your outrage about what should be demanded of others. In other words, fast as long as you want and be joyful about it and don’t tell everyone. That’s how Jesus told us to conduct our fasting.

Mel
 
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_1_38.gif no thanks, nothing for me, I plan on going to Mass in a few hours,

Seriously though, (if that is allowed), the OP seems rather desparate to find a thread starter. Fasting is a very good thing… even when the only purpose is self-mortification.

His “problem” seems to be only the one-hour thing… so, I agree with the suggestions of making it much longer if the reason is self sacrifice for the Lord.

.

%between%
 
The Orthodox have the Onion Dome as a satire page to poke fun at themselves. What do the Catholics have? I think it is greatly needed.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
The Orthodox have the Onion Dome as a satire page to poke fun at themselves. What do the Catholics have? I think it is greatly needed.

CDL
Click to expand...
Oh that would be funny! I love the OD. Catholics have so much more material! I mean that in al ight-hearted way of course.

Mel
 
I think this very issue is ripe for the picking. Perhaps our original poster would like to start such a thread and do a satire on a pre Mass tailgating party gone bad. Or how the Tailgating party intended one thing but produced another. My juices are beginning to flow. Perhaps I’ll have time tonight to post something if you all don’t beat me to it.

I can see one on Bingo. Nuns used to be easy pickings but they take themselves far too seriously these days. Can’t wear a habit, don’t you know, because we really wish to cease existing. Perhaps somethig a priests sees now that he looks at the people all of the time that he wishes he didn’t. That would work for the Traditionalists or the Easterners since they still face East…but you get my point.

Any other ideas?

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top